The death toll from last weekend's record flooding in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi has risen to 24, making it the deadliest non-tropical storm or hurricane flood disaster in the U.S. since the October 1998 Central Texas floods that killed 31 when a cold front stalled over Texas. As flood waters recede today, the toll from last weekend's floods is expected to grow higher. Particularly hard-hit was the Nashville, Tennessee area, where ten fatalities were reported. The city had its heaviest 1-day and 2-day rainfall amounts in its history over the weekend. A remarkable 7.25" of rain fell on the city Sunday, breaking the record for most rain in a single day (6.60", set September 13, 1979.) Nashville's third greatest day of rainfall on record occurred Saturday, when 6.32" fell. Nashville also eclipsed its greatest 6-hour and 12-hour rainfall events on record, with 5.57" and 7.20", respectively, falling on Sunday. And, only two days into the month, the weekend rains made it the rainiest May in Nashville's history.

Rainfall records were smashed all across Tennessee, Kentucky, and northern Mississippi over the weekend, with amounts as high as 17.73" recorded at Camden, TN, and 17.02" at Brownsville, TN. According to Chris Burt, the author of the excellent book Extreme Weather, the 13.30" that fell on Camden in 24 hours just missed eclipsing the state's all-time 24-hour precipitation record, the 13.60" inches that fell on Milan on September 13, 1982. Jackson, Tennessee had its rainiest day in its 63-year weather history on Sunday, 7.93". Bowling Green Kentucky had its heaviest 2-day precipitation event on record, 9.67". Records in Bowling Green go back to 1870.

Figure 1. Satellite-estimated precipitable water at 23 UTC (7 pm EDT) Sunday, May 2, 2010. Precipitable water is a measure of how much rain would be produced if all the water vapor and cloud moisture through the depth of the atmosphere were to fall as rain. Values above 50 mm (about 2 inches) are frequently associated with flooding. Sunday's precipitable water image showed a tropical disturbance crossed Mexico into the Gulf of Mexico, dragging a plume of very moist air northwards over the Southeast U.S. Image credit: University of Wisconsin GOES Satellite Blog.

The record rains were accompanied by a surge of very warm air that set record high temperature marks at 21 major airports across the Eastern U.S. on Saturday. This is not surprising, since more moisture can evaporate into warmer air, making record-setting rainfall events more likely when record high temperatures are present. Accompanying this warm air was moisture from a tropical disturbance that crossed over Mexico from the tropical East Pacific over the weekend (Figure 1.)

The record rains sent the Cumberland River in downtown Nashville surging to 51.86' this morning, 12' over flood height, and the highest level the river has reached since a flood control project was completed in the early 1960s. The previous post-flood control project record level was 47.6', set on March 15, 1975 (the river hit 56.2' in 1929, before the flood control project was built.) The river has now crested (Figure 2) and is expected to recede below flood stage by Wednesday morning. There are no further rains in the forecast this week for Tennessee. At least four rivers in Tennessee reached their greatest flood heights on record this week. Most remarkable was the Duck River at Centreville, which crested at 47', a full 25 feet above flood stage, and ten feet higher than the previous record crest, achieved in 1948 (to check out the flood heights, use our wundermap for Nashville with the "USGS River" layer turned on.)

Funding issues to take 17 Tennessee streamgages offlineAccording to the USGS web site, seventeen Tennessee streamflow gages with records going back up to 85 years will stop collecting data on July 1 because of budget cuts. With up to eighteen people in Tennessee dying from flooding this weekend, now hardly seems to be the time to be skimping on monitoring river flow levels by taking 17 of Tennessee's 94 streamflow gages out of service. These gages are critical for proper issuance of flood warnings to people in harm's way. Furthermore, Tennessee and most of the northern 2/3 of the U.S. can expect a much higher incidence of record flooding in coming decades. This will be driven by two factors: increased urban development causing faster run-off, and an increase in very heavy precipitation events due to global warming. Both factors have already contributed to significant increases in flooding events in recent decades over much of the U.S. The USGS web site advertises that users who can contribute funding for the non-Federal share of costs to continue operation of these streamgages should contact Shannon Williams of the USGS Tennessee Water Science Center at 615-837-4755 or swilliam@usgs.gov. Tennessee is not the only state with streamgages at risk of closing down; fully 276 gages in 37 states have been shut down or will be shut down later this year. If you have questions about specific streamgages, click on the state of concern on the USGS web page of threatened stream gages.

Oil spill updateThe oil slick from the April 20 explosion and blowout of the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon has retreated from the coast, thanks to a slackening of the persistent onshore winds that have affected the northern Gulf of Mexico over the past week. According to the latest NWS marine forecast, winds will be light and variable through Wednesday, resulting in little transport of the oil slick. Winds will then resume a weak onshore flow at 5 - 10 knots, Thursday through Friday, then reverse to blow offshore at 5 - 10 knots over the weekend. The net result of this wind pattern will be little transport of the oil slick. The only areas at risk of landfalling oil over the next five days will be the mouth of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, and the Chandeleur Islands. The latest forecast of Gulf currents from the NOAA HYCOM model (see also this alternative view of the HYCOM ocean current forecast) show weak ocean currents affecting the region during the remainder of the week. These currents will not be strong enough to push any oil southwards into the Loop Current over the next five days, so the Keys and South Florida are safe from oil for now. I'll have a post on the long-range prospects for oil to enter the Loop Current later this week, and a discussion of how a hurricane might affect and be affected by the oil spill.

I am a wrecker driver for Martin's wrecker service. We were called to remove the vehicles that got caught in the flooding on interstate I 24 westbound near the Bell Road exit in Nashville Tennessee. Of course this is after the waters had subsided. It was roughly 200, 250 cars and trucks that got caught up in the flood..

This car drove into the swiftly moving water at the Belle Meade Kroger and was thrown up against a parking deck. Luckily someone got a ladder and dropped it down to break the rear window and the driver climbed out safely!

Just looking at some TV coverage of quite a big flotilla of craft supporting BP's efforts above the oil leak in the gulf. Eventually there will be 2 tankers stationed there to collect the oil from the domes (assuming they work). They will stay there until the new well is sunk (3 months away assuming no storm delays).

BUT remember that the tankers and support fleet (robot sub management, cranes etc) will have to leave once marine conditions dictate - eg gulf cane. The domes would be left in place on the sea floor but without the tankers above them they will leak.

I am surprised that the main stream media still don't have a decent medium-term view of the problem we face. The TV companies seem to think that the problem is somehow reducing as long as the slick remains offshore. Yet again the media fail to grasp the issue.

We had warm SST's last year as well. An interesting thing to do is to read last year's blogs during the same period.

No where NEAR as warm as this year. Shear has been below average for months, El Nino is dying and WILL NOT lag as this El Nino was a reactive one. All the factors are coming together this season, and its disturbing to watch.

Liangping County was hit by a tornado and a hailstorm that left six people dead and another 34 injured, Xinhua reported.

An additional 17 people died and 127 people were injured in neighboring Dianjiang County due to severe weather, the news agency said, though it did not give the exact nature of the storm.http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/05/china.severe.weather/index.html?hpt=T2

Quoting KoritheMan:I can't help but notice that this year features the same naming list as the one used in 2004, which, obviously, included Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne.

Colin, Fiona, Igor, and Julia, respectively, replaced the aforementioned storms, and are on the list to be used for this year's Atlantic hurricane season.

Given that nature seems to enjoy throwing strange coincidences around (such Houston and its unfortunate luck with List 5 in the Atlantic, which contained Alicia two Allisons, all of which stalled or moved painfully slowly through the area, causing extensive damage), I often wonder about whether or not Florida will receive a major hurricane landfall from one (or more) of the four aforementioned names (Colin, Fiona, Igor, and Julia), which, again, replaced 2004's Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne.

Some food for thought, no?

There could be something to that. My area gets hit on September 13th over and over and many of them at 2 something in the morning. Looking back on decades old maps there are place that are hit over and over too. I mean exactly the same places. Weird.

I can't help but notice that this year features the same naming list as the one used in 2004, which, obviously, included Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne.

Colin, Fiona, Igor, and Julia, respectively, replaced the aforementioned storms, and are on the list to be used for this year's Atlantic hurricane season.

Given that nature seems to enjoy throwing strange coincidences around (such Houston and its unfortunate luck with List 5 in the Atlantic, which contained Alicia two Allisons, all of which stalled or moved painfully slowly through the area, causing extensive damage), I often wonder about whether or not Florida will receive a major hurricane landfall from one (or more) of the four aforementioned names (Colin, Fiona, Igor, and Julia), which, again, replaced 2004's Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne.

Well I'm sorry that I can't provide you with that. Easily-accessible records of Accuweather's forecasts only go back to about 2007 with copies on YouTube and other things. There are some archives of blogs on Accuweather that usually reference Bastardi's hurricane forecasts, but that will take some digging on my part.....I'll post it here if I find some stuff.

Probabilities....do have their place. However, they are very often used as a scape goat to say that "well we weren't really wrong...." just because they had a 40% chance of being colder than normal instead of warmer than normal, and it ended up colder. NOAA's almighty equal chances on their climate forecasts drive me nuts too. I consider it the region of "near-normal", but they don't even define it that way.

What's wrong with a straight-up forecast anyway? If NOAA would make one I don't think anyone would complain....since I'm sure they would put all their time and effort into making it as accurate as possible.

Really....what's wrong with this?

Very simple and to the point for people to easily understand and visualize what the winter is forecast to be like. I really don't think the average person cares what "percent" chance there is of the temperature and precipitation being above or below normal. Chances are chances....that's a computer's job. The human touch doesn't have to deal in probabilities....look at the stats the computers spit out and USE it to your benefit...don't spit it back out on a map and call it a forecast.

Sorry if that sounds really biased lol, but that's just how I feel about it. Not to mention that NOAA always has the 6-11-month winter temperature forecast painted orange....which bugs me. That's wrong a whole ton of the time.

...by the way, the Accuweather forecast above was issued in July of 2009 LOL. Pretty good or what?

Actually that map was completely right. NC and midatlantic got destroyed with snow but they usually don't whereas places north had below or average snow winters.

Flash floods kill at least 20 in western AfghanistanAfghan aid agencies and Nato troops yesterday rushed relief supplies to western Afghanistan, where flash floods triggered by torrential rains have killed at least 20 people, officials said. The flooding began in the western provinces of Herat and Ghor on Tuesday, said Ahmad Shekib Hamraz, an official with the Afghan National Disaster Management Commission. Thirty people were also injured in flooding 100 kilometres east of Herat City, while the “number missing is still unknown,” the Nato alliance said in a statement, quoting initial reports by local authorities. Hamraz said that at least one person was also killed in Ghor, while hundreds of houses were destroyed.

Arkansas is still trying to figure out if they get federal aid & if crops will need replanted from their weather last weekend.

Drak & Levi~ I have to go with Drak on this one. NOAA is the data source..beyond the weekend forecast (which really falls on NWS) I want to see dry statistics, the whys & what nots, records, images, data & I can live with weather jargon/abbreviations. Accuweather & media, as well as those selling a product don't make the data.. their part of the agreement (& there is an agreement) is to generate the pretty packaging that anyone can easily grasp. So NOAA tends to leave a lot of wiggle room on the most uncertain forecasts, being specific would ruin JB's fun..atleast they are trying to tighten up on when it comes to if I need to board up or not.

I'm not the spokesperson for NOAA and I have disagreed with their forecasts; and, while the graphics may not be up to your standards and in some areas I do agree on the need for a more thorough explanation, I still do like the idea of probabilities regards of what category they are.

And, why would you need anything more detailed than that for a forecast that is so far out and that is subject to change? What about that variable? You can't always just stick to your guns. Why should you pinpoint exactly how much warmer it will need to be?

No, and Accuweather doesn't pinpoint values 6 months out, as we saw on their winter forecast issued in July of last year, but under 3 months? Definitely if I were NOAA I would get more specific. I mean I wouldn't complain so much if it was a normal thing, but NOAA's forecasts have the most "uncertainty" built into them of any other government weather agency in the world. Nobody else deals in such low probabilities and vague forecasts.

Even take the NHC....last year's forecast was for 9-14 named storms. We got 9...congrats NOAA! You nailed the forecast! No? I commented last June about how vague their forecast was. The range was anywhere from much below-normal to above normal. Really.....that's also the largest range in the world. Hurricane forecasts like "40% chance of above-normal season, 30% chance of near-normal season, and 30% chance of below-normal season" is a completely no-lose situation they put themselves in. Quite frankly, a pathetic forecast to say the least.

If this was 30 years ago, I would be fine with it, but we have the ability to forecast better than that. Relative to the rest of the world, our government's forecasts are the shiest and the most vague.

Floods in Angola have killed more than 50 people and displaced more than 65,000 since the start of the rainy season in January, an official told state radio Wednesday.

“Our death toll is a little worrying, since we already have 54 deaths, 110 municipalities affected, 87 wounded, 66,719 displaced people (and) 157 schools destroyed,” said Eugenio Laborinho, president of the civil protection commission.

“The main causes of this high toll are a shortage of technical networks and infrastructure in most cities, illegal construction in non-urbanised areas and the obstruction of water lines,” the commission said in a statement.

Last year, southern Africa saw its heaviest rainfall in years, with floods that affected 200,000 people in Angola, according to the UN.

But what's the point in nearly-equal probabilities? That just usually translates into a "near-normal" area on a normal forecast map anyway. "Uncertainty" usually takes the form of a "near-normal" forecast. So what's the point of that anyway. My mind just interprets those maps as outlining areas of slightly above normal (low probabilities) and much above normal (high probabilities) anyway. And that is how most of the public views the maps as well, based on the colors, not the probabilities.

Also, using probabilities on those maps gives the public no clue just how much warmer than normal it's supposed to be. You have to dig into their methods of generating the maps and know the standard deviation of temperatures for your area to calculate the forecasted anomalies for your area. It's ridiculous.

But when NOAA uses just probabilities and nothing else then it gives them a lot to hide behind...honestly. They are wrong a lot of the time and likely will be again on this summer and winter (you watch I will be freezing in Alaska this winter, not baking in heat). But you never hear about them being wrong....no that's too harsh of a word for them to use.

I'm not the spokesperson for NOAA and I have disagreed with their forecasts; and, while the graphics may not be up to your standards and in some areas I do agree on the need for a more thorough explanation, I still do like the idea of probabilities regards of what category they are.

And, why would you need anything more detailed than that for a forecast that is so far out and that is subject to change? What about that variable? You can't always just stick to your guns. Why should you pinpoint exactly how much warmer it will need to be?

That MIMIC TPW that Masters has posted up top was exactly what I was concerned about with that set up tapping the blob that hit Central America. Totally looked like someone was going to drown..

Speaking of which.. That article I posted earlier about the stories that came out of Nashville. 1st that woman that lost her husband saving their (also ill fated) daughter in the swollen creek behind their house... Hours before he'd rescued the son. After the 1st rescue you'd think there was no way another kid was gonna go out & play in it.. also kinda surprised how many are comparing this to Katrina.

Three missing, 400 evacuated after heavy rain in north China08:50, May 06, 2010

Three people were missing and more than 400 others had been evacuated after torrential rain in north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, said local authorities Wednesday.

The floodwaters washed away three people in Fengzhen City in southern Ulanqab on Tuesday afternoon, said the regional civil affairs department.

"The rain came abruptly. In some parts of the city, the water is waist deep," a rescuer said Tuesday.

The floodwaters had mostly receded by Wednesday morning.

More than 400 people in Liangchang County, Xinghe County and Fengzhen City of Ulanqab had been evacuated. More than 20,000 yuan (2,929 U.S.dollars) in disaster relief had been issued, said the department.

What is understood from the NOAA graphic is that the probability favors above normal. The normal and below normal categories are obviously limited to sharing 50%. And those aren't even the riches of the reds non the NOAA graphic. Probabilites are also reflective of pride or confidence in the forecast. It is important to express the uncertainty.

I think the issue for you is whether or not the probabilites lean in two outer quintile categories and they simply cannot always do so.

But what's the point in nearly-equal probabilities? That just usually translates into a "near-normal" area on a normal forecast map anyway. "Uncertainty" usually takes the form of a "near-normal" forecast. So what's the point of that anyway. My mind just interprets those maps as outlining areas of slightly above normal (low probabilities) and much above normal (high probabilities) anyway. And that is how most of the public views the maps as well, based on the colors, not the probabilities.

Also, using probabilities on those maps gives the public no clue just how much warmer than normal it's supposed to be. You have to dig into their methods of generating the maps and know the standard deviation of temperatures for your area to calculate the forecasted anomalies for your area. It's ridiculous.

But when NOAA uses just probabilities and nothing else then it gives them a lot to hide behind...honestly. They are wrong a lot of the time and likely will be again on this summer and coming winter (you watch I will be freezing in Alaska this winter, not baking in heat). But you never hear about them being wrong....no that's too harsh of a word for them to use.

Sure I can understand that....as I said probabilities have their place. However, I think NOAA overuses them a bit. I like how the ECMWF has both probabilities and ensemble means on its model output. But look at their probability maps...

At least they have a lot of areas under 70% or more probability for warm or cold. That's a lot of red and blue. NOAA is far more conservative, with dismal oranges and blues most of the time, indicating low probabilities. Even their rich reds, which is as deep as they will go on a 3+ month forecast, indicate a 50% chance of above normal, which means there's also a 50% chance of normal or below normal.

NOAA forecast for the same period as the ECMWF, July-August-September:

What is understood from the NOAA graphic is that the probability favors above normal. The normal and below normal categories are obviously limited to sharing 50%. And those aren't even the riches of the reds non the NOAA graphic. Probabilites are also reflective of pride or confidence in the forecast. It is important to express the uncertainty.

I think the issue for you is whether or not the probabilites lean in two outer quintile categories and they simply cannot always do so.

That's where subjective views come into play. Probabilities allow for us to determine for ourselves what will happen and also allow us to express our uncertainty. Those ECMWF graphics you accolade use probabilities as well straight output from the ensemble means. If the probabilities do get close then things are simply just not as clear cut as there is no reason to pretend that it is.

Your views are very much like Bastardi who I know dislikes probabilities as well as he has fervently stated in the past.

Sure I can understand that....as I said probabilities have their place. However, I think NOAA overuses them a bit. I like how the ECMWF has both probabilities and ensemble means on its model output. But look at their probability maps...

At least they have a lot of areas under 70% or more probability for warm or cold. That's a lot of red and blue. NOAA is far more conservative, with dismal oranges and blues most of the time, indicating low probabilities. Even their rich reds, which is as deep as they will go on a 3 month forecast, only indicate a 50% chance of above normal, which means there's also a 50% chance of normal or below normal.

NOAA forecast for the same period as the ECMWF, July-August-September:

The deep reds in the west seem to the eye to indicate a fairly certain forecast of above-normal temperatures in that region during the JAS period, but if probabilities are used to indicate uncertainty as you say, then NOAA sure seems to have a lot of it, even in their most bullish of forecasts.

A possible explanation of what happened on the Deepwater Horizon (Posted on 5/4/10 at 10:11 a.m.)This has been posted on a couple of other boards out there.Might as well put it here, too, and see what you guys think.

"The following has just been passed to me which may explain some things (especially whether a liner or full string was run):

This well had been giving some problems all the way down and was a big discovery. Big pressure, 16ppg+ mud weight. They ran a long string of 7" production casing - not a liner, the confusion arising from the fact that all casing strings on a floating rig are run on drill pipe and hung off on the wellhead on the sea floor, like a "liner". They cemented this casing with lightweight cement containing nitrogen because they were having lost circulation in between the well kicking all the way down.The calculations and the execution of this kind of a cement job are complex, in order that you neither let the well flow from too little hydrostatic pressure nor break it down and lose the fluid and cement from too much hydrostatic. But you gotta believe BP had 8 or 10 of their best double and triple checking everything.On the outside of the top joint of casing is a seal assembly - "packoff" - that sets inside the subsea wellhead and seals. This was set and tested to 10,000 psi, OK.This was the end of the well until testing was to begin at a later time, so a temporary "bridge plug" was run in on drill pipe to set somewhere near the top of the well below 5,000 ft. This is the second barrier, you always have to have 2, and the casing was the first one. It is not know if this was actually set or not. At the same time they took the 16+ ppg mud out of the riser and replaced it with sea water so that they could pull the riser, lay it down, and move off.When they did this, they of course took away ...... hydrostatic on the well. But this was OK, normal, since the well was plugged both on the inside with the casing and on the outside with the tested packoff. But something turned loose all of a sudden, and the conventional wisdom would be the packoff on the outside of the casing.Gas and oil rushed up the riser; there was little wind, and a gas cloud got all over the rig. When the main inductions of the engines got a whiff, they ran away and exploded. Blew them right off the rig. This set everything on fire. A similar explosion in the mud pit / mud pump room blew the mud pumps overboard. Another in the mud sack storage room, sited most unfortunately right next to the living quarters, took out all the interior walls where everyone was hanging out having - I am not making this up - a party to celebrate 7 years of accident free work on this rig. 7 BP bigwigs were there visiting from town.In this sense they were lucky that the only ones lost were the 9 rig crew on the rig floor and 2 mud engineers down on the pits. The furniture and walls trapped some and broke some bones but they all managed to get in the lifeboats with assistance from the others.The safety shut ins on the BOP were tripped but it is not clear why they did not work. This system has 4 way redundancy; 2 separate hydraulic systems and 2 separate electric systems should be able to operate any of the functions on the stack. They are tested every 14 days, all of them. (there is also a stab on the stack so that an ROV can plug in and operate it, but now it is too late because things are damaged).The well is flowing through the BOP stack, probably around the outside of the 7" casing. As reported elsewhere, none of the "rams", those being the valves that are suppose to close around the drill pipe and / or shear it right in two and seal on the open hole, are sealing. Up the riser and out some holes in it where it is kinked. A little is coming out of the drill pipe too which is sticking out of the top of the riser and laid out on the ocean floor. The volumes as reported by the media are not correct but who knows exactly how much is coming?2 relief wells will be drilled but it will take at least 60 days to kill it that way. There is a "deep sea intervention vessel" on the way, I don't know if that means a submarine or not, one would think this is too deep for subs, and it will have special cutting tools to try to cut off the very bottom of the riser on top of the BOP. The area is remarkably free from debris. The rig "Enterprise" is standing by with another BOP stack and a special connector to set down on top of the original one and then close. One unknown is if they get a new stack on it and close it, will the pregnant dog broach around the outside of all the casing??In order for a disaster of this magnitude to happen, more than one thing has to go wrong, or fail. First, a BallS**tty cement job. The wellhead packoff / seal assembly, while designed to hold the pressure, is just a backup. And finally, the ability to close the well in with the BOP somehow went away."

Well I'm sorry that I can't provide you with that. Easily-accessible records of Accuweather's forecasts only go back to about 2007 with copies on YouTube and other things. There are some archives of blogs on Accuweather that usually reference Bastardi's hurricane forecasts, but that will take some digging on my part.....I'll post it here if I find some stuff.

Probabilities....do have their place. However, they are very often used as a scape goat to say that "well we weren't really wrong...." just because they had a 40% chance of being colder than normal instead of warmer than normal, and it ended up colder. NOAA's almighty equal chances on their climate forecasts drive me nuts too. I consider it the region of "near-normal", but they don't even define it that way.

What's wrong with a straight-up forecast anyway? If NOAA would make one I don't think anyone would complain....since I'm sure they would put all their time and effort into making it as accurate as possible.

Really....what's wrong with this?

Very simple and to the point for people to easily understand and visualize what the winter is forecast to be like. I really don't think the average person cares what "percent" chance there is of the temperature and precipitation being above or below normal. Chances are chances....that's a computer's job. The human touch doesn't have to deal in probabilities....look at the stats the computers spit out and USE it to your benefit...don't spit it back out on a map and call it a forecast.

Sorry if that sounds really biased lol, but that's just how I feel about it. Not to mention that NOAA always has the 6-11-month winter temperature forecast painted orange....which bugs me. That's wrong a whole ton of the time.

...by the way, the Accuweather forecast above was issued in July of 2009 LOL. Pretty good or what?

That's where subjective views come into play. Probabilities allow for us to determine for ourselves what will happen and also allow us to express our uncertainty. Those ECMWF graphics you accolade use probabilities as well straight output from the ensemble means. If the probabilities do get close then things are simply just not as clear cut as there is no reason to pretend that it is.

Your views are very much like Bastardi who I know dislikes probabilities as well as he has fervently stated in the past.

In the overall scheme, it is a minor point. One part of the entire puzzle. But I disagree with forecasts of 20 or more storms and a comparison to 2005. A lot of bloggers are concentrating on SST's. That is a componet, but not the deciding factor.

Honestly I think that anything above 20 would be the absolute worst case scenario.

The point im trying to deliver is that 2009 and 2010 are nothing alike.

In the overall scheme, it is a minor point. One part of the entire puzzle. But I disagree with forecasts of 20 or more storms and a comparison to 2005. A lot of bloggers are concentrating on SST's. That is a componet, but not the deciding factor.

That is just one season. I cannot give credibility without knowing his exact forecast numbers and dates over a period a time.

And I don't agree with simply right or wrong. Probabilities are a necessary to determine forecast potential and accuracy; putting things into a category puts things into perspective. Simply stating things just doesn't bode well for me.

I'm guessing you don't like that we have statistics when it comes to precipitation probabilities to?

Well I'm sorry that I can't provide you with that. Easily-accessible records of Accuweather's forecasts only go back to about 2007 with copies on YouTube and other things. There are some archives of blogs on Accuweather that usually reference Bastardi's hurricane forecasts, but that will take some digging on my part.....I'll post it here if I find some stuff.

Probabilities....do have their place. However, they are very often used as a scape goat to say that "well we weren't really wrong...." just because they had a 40% chance of being colder than normal instead of warmer than normal, and it ended up colder. NOAA's almighty equal chances on their climate forecasts drive me nuts too. I consider it the region of "near-normal", but they don't even define it that way.

What's wrong with a straight-up forecast anyway? If NOAA would make one I don't think anyone would complain....since I'm sure they would put all their time and effort into making it as accurate as possible.

Really....what's wrong with this?

Very simple and to the point for people to easily understand and visualize what the winter is forecast to be like. I really don't think the average person cares what "percent" chance there is of the temperature and precipitation being above or below normal. Chances are chances....that's a computer's job. The human touch doesn't have to deal in probabilities....look at the stats the computers spit out and USE it to your benefit...don't spit it back out on a map and call it a forecast.

Sorry if that sounds really biased lol, but that's just how I feel about it. Not to mention that NOAA always has the 6-11-month winter temperature forecast painted orange....which bugs me. That's wrong a whole ton of the time.

...by the way, the Accuweather forecast above was issued in July of 2009 LOL. Pretty good or what?

Quoting GeoffreyWPB:Did you read the entire and subsequent posts? SST's are only a small part of the entire equation.

The formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood. While six factors appear to be generally necessary, tropical cyclones may occasionally form without meeting all of the following conditions. In most situations, water temperatures of at least 26.5 °C (79.7 °F) are needed down to a depth of at least 50 metres (160 ft); waters of this temperature cause the overlying atmosphere to be unstable enough to sustain convection and thunderstorms. Another factor is rapid cooling with height, which allows the release of the heat of condensation that powers a tropical cyclone.High humidity is needed, especially in the lower-to-mid troposphere; when there is a great deal of moisture in the atmosphere, conditions are more favorable for disturbances to develop. Low amounts of wind shear are needed, as high shear is disruptive to the storm's circulation. Tropical cyclones generally need to form more than 555 kilometres (345 mi) or 5 degrees of latitude away from the equator, allowing the Coriolis effect to deflect winds blowing towards the low pressure center and creating a circulation. Lastly, a formative tropical cyclone needs a pre-existing system of disturbed weather, although without a circulation no cyclonic development will take place.

They unfortunately don't archive his posts, and I think they should, and I can't tell you the exact numbers and dates for the past 10 years, but I can point out the recent seasons. For instance, this is an article on his forecast for 2007.

Bastardi's May forecast had 13-14 named storms with 3 majors. The NHC was higher with 13-17 named storms and 3-5 majors, and CSU was up at 17 named storms and 5 majors in both their April and June forecasts.

That is just one season. I cannot give credibility without knowing his exact forecast numbers and dates over a period a time.

And I don't agree with simply right or wrong. Probabilities are a necessary to determine forecast potential and accuracy; putting things into a category puts things into perspective. Simply stating things just doesn't bode well for me.

I'm guessing you don't like that we have statistics when it comes to precipitation probabilities to?